Epstein Secrets

(2d Cir. 1975), although the opinion acknowledged the ability of district courts to compel disclosure of the identity of government witnesses, the Second Circuit reversed for abuse of discretion the district court's decision to do so in that case because the defendant there, as here, had made "only an abstrac

urportedly had received "critical new information" from the criminal case that it could not disclose "because it is subject to a protective order in the Criminal Action," and further noting publicly a desire to seek modification of the protective order in thi use such materials in the civil case, which the protect

F APPEAL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant in the above-captioned case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the district court's Order of July 23, 2020, unsealing the deposition materials and the Order of July 29, 2020, denying Ms. Maxwell's motion t

ion as an officer of this Court. At this time, counsel is not at liberty to disclose the information because it is subject to a protective order in the Criminal Action, which forbids its use "for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense" of the criminal action absent "further order of the Court."

(2d Cir. 1975), although the opinion acknowledged the ability of district courts to compel disclosure of the identity of government witnesses, the Second Circuit reversed for abuse of discretion the district court's decision to do so in that case because the defendant there, as here, had made "only an abstrac

urportedly had received "critical new information" from the criminal case that it could not disclose "because it is subject to a protective order in the Criminal Action," and further noting publicly a desire to seek modification of the protective order in this case to use such materials in the civil case, which the

(2d Cir. 1975), although the opinion acknowledged the ability of district courts to compel disclosure of the identity of government witnesses, the Second Circuit reversed for abuse of discretion the district court's decision to do so in that case because the defendant there, as here, had made "only an abstrac

urportedly had received "critical new information" from the criminal case that it could not disclose "because it is subject to a protective order in the Criminal Action," and further noting publicly a desire to seek modification of the protective order in this') use such materials in the civil case, which the prot